Talk About Tennis 2.0

Navarro-Gauff looks enticing but it is at midnight for me. .no other particularly interesting match

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 11:49 am Navarro-Gauff looks enticing but it is at midnight for me. .no other particularly interesting match

I think Vekic-Zhang could be a very good match today,

New England Nitemare wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 12:20 pm

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 11:49 am Navarro-Gauff looks enticing but it is at midnight for me. .no other particularly interesting match

I think Vekic-Zhang could be a very good match today,

But we just saw them....albeit on clay..

Anyway, both will be good matches, doesn't matter who wins but too late at night for me..

ashkor87 wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 5:25 am If you disagree with me, please check how many GS semis Pegula has been to in her entire career...you may be surprised.

Ashkor, you take it to the extreme. NOBODY in this forum has said that Pegula is the second coming of Chris Evert, with power. We have said that she is a reliable player, that has earned her ranking. She recently won Toronto and made the Cincy finals. Those are good results.
She has never made a slam's semi? We know that. For that matter, your beloved Alexandrova, another fine player, has never made a QF (I think). What does that make of Alexandrova? A fine player, and somebody that by now we know where she stands.
It is not a dichotomy of "Great or Putrid". Right now, if you go by historical achievements, there is not one single great player, other than IGA on clay (she is excellent there). And even Iga lost on clay at the Olympics.
One final example: I love Navarro. Her FH is gorgeous and I love the stroke. Is she GS material? I say not. But she is not a dog chewed ball either.

Ashkor, some of your takes are downright strange.

You love Leylah Fernandez, who has been past the third round of exactly two of the 18 slams she has entered, but you are constantly discounting Pegula, who has been to six quarterfinals in the past four years. Yes, Fernandez had the one run to a final, but no sane person could argue Fernandez is a better player or has a better chance to win any slam than Pegula considering she entered all those tournaments in which Pegula reached the quarters and lost much earlier.

Pegula is a really good player. She clearly is not as good as Sabalenka or a few other top players when they are playing at the top of their game, but I'm mystified as to why you discount her over and over and over and over and over again. Makes no sense.

I'm just going to join the chorus in saying that in order to win a major you have to get past Ms Pegula.

Now that the men's draw has fallen apart I want to say that the women deserve some credit for how this draw has stood up. There could still be surprise finalists and a surprise winner but it has held.

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 8:28 pm Now that the men's draw has fallen apart I want to say that the women deserve some credit for how this draw has stood up. There could still be surprise finalists and a surprise winner but it has held.

Indeed. Rybakina's departure is the sole hole in the draw, and that was not tennis related.
We may be approaching that spot I said. Once the big three will be gone, both tours will be very open for everybody.

jazzyg wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 5:41 pm Ashkor, some of your takes are downright strange.

You love Leylah Fernandez, who has been past the third round of exactly two of the 18 slams she has entered, but you are constantly discounting Pegula, who has been to six quarterfinals in the past four years. Yes, Fernandez had the one run to a final, but no sane person could argue Fernandez is a better player or has a better chance to win any slam than Pegula considering she entered all those tournaments in which Pegula reached the quarters and lost much earlier.

Pegula is a really good player. She clearly is not as good as Sabalenka or a few other top players when they are playing at the top of their game, but I'm mystified as to why you discount her over and over and over and over and over again. Makes no sense.

I don't disagree except- yes I do think Leylah has s better chance of winning a major (10%) than Pegula does (1%} and you may note that the other players mentioned by you and others are not ranked top 6..I discount Pegula mainly because her ranking and the general estimation of her, is too high. She is over-,rated, though she is very good. I have often called her the gold standard, the benchmark.. if you want to be called a great player you have to beat Pegula consistently,..a lesser player cannot do it.
And yes, I do think Navarro has lots of up-side, she could be a Tier 1 player some day - more than Pegula.
Does anyone disagree?

Am so delighted to see Muchova doing well..she is the only player who comes to the net regularly and does it at the right time...would love to see her take the title..
Re Evert's distasteful comments, I would give her the benefit of the doubt..maybe all she meant is that no woman plays like her (which is in fact true)..would have been better if she had referenced Navratilova instead of 'a man'..

Muchova has a clear path to the semis (hope I didn't jinx her right there!)....

ti-amie wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2024 8:26 pm I'm just going to join the chorus in saying that in order to win a major you have to get past Ms Pegula.

Which I am saying too, and have been, for some time!

So Shnaider for the title then?

watched highlights of Pegula-Shnaider (couldnt see the actual match, too late at night for me).. impressed with Peugula's court sense, ability to pull Shnaider out of position, ease with which she puts the ball in the right place after creating an opening. Nice to see.
A bit like Sloane, perhaps..except Sloane is even more subtle..